strategy-review
Use when reviewing, critiquing, or stress-testing an existing strategy document. Evaluates seven dimensions — diagnosis quality, guiding policy strength, action coherence, assumption exposure, falsifiability — with optional 7S, Five Forces, Balanced Scorecard, and Hoshin Kanri lenses. Triggers on: review my strategy, poke holes in this plan, what's weak here, strategy audit, red team this. Does NOT build strategy (use strategy-interview) or brainstorm project ideas (use brainstorm-beagle).
Install via CLI (Recommended)
clawhub install openclaw/skills/skills/anderskev/strategy-reviewStrategy Review
Pressure-test strategy documents to find where they'll break before reality does it for you. The primary job isn't to evaluate prose quality or check formatting — it's to find the gaps, hidden failure paths, and under-accounted risks that will kill the strategy in execution. A strategy that survives this review has a meaningfully better chance of surviving contact with the real world.
This skill complements the beagle-analysis:strategy-interview skill. Strategy-interview helps build a strategy through guided conversation; strategy-review subjects an existing strategy to rigorous adversarial evaluation using the same kernel framework (diagnosis, guiding policy, coherent actions) and bad-strategy filter.
What makes this different from generic feedback
Most strategy feedback falls into two useless categories: vague praise ("this is really thoughtful") or surface-level nitpicking ("consider adding a timeline"). Neither helps the author see whether their thinking actually holds up under stress.
This review does three things that generic feedback doesn't:
- Tests structural integrity — whether the logical chain from diagnosis through guiding policy to coherent actions actually holds together, or whether the "therefore" between them is secretly an "and also."
- Hunts for failure paths — not just what's wrong with the document, but what goes wrong in the real world because of what's missing. The slow drift scenario, the capability gap that stalls the load-bearing action, the competitor response nobody modeled, the political resistance the strategy pretends doesn't exist.
- Surfaces invisible assumptions — every strategy is a bet, but most strategies don't name their bets. This review finds the load-bearing assumptions the author hasn't stated and maps the risk of each one being wrong.
Before you start
Read references/review-dimensions.md — it contains the seven evaluation dimensions and their criteria. This is the backbone of the review. Keep it in working memory throughout.
Hard gates (evidence-bound)
These steps are easy to rationalize without evidence; each gate has a pass condition before you advance.
Metadata
Not sure this is the right skill?
Describe what you want to build — we'll match you to the best skill from 16,000+ options.
Find the right skillPaste this into your clawhub.json to enable this plugin.
{
"plugins": {
"official-anderskev-strategy-review": {
"enabled": true,
"auto_update": true
}
}
}Related Skills
explanation-docs
Explanation documentation patterns for understanding-oriented content - conceptual guides that explain why things work the way they do
tutorial-docs
Tutorial patterns for documentation - learning-oriented guides that teach through guided doing
pytest-code-review
Reviews pytest test code for async patterns, fixtures, parametrize, and mocking. Use when reviewing test_*.py files, checking async test functions, fixture usage, or mock patterns.
reference-docs
Reference documentation patterns for API and symbol documentation. Use when writing reference docs, API docs, parameter tables, or technical specifications. Triggers on reference docs, API reference, function reference, parameters table, symbol documentation.
serde-code-review
Reviews serde serialization code for derive patterns, enum representations, custom implementations, and common serialization bugs. Use when reviewing Rust code that uses serde, serde_json, toml, or any serde-based serialization format. Covers attribute macros, field renaming, and format-specific pitfalls.